|
So who wants to read a 12 page Stanford research paper on Optimal Tip to Tip Efficiency?
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Konsek posted:So who wants to read a 12 page Stanford research paper on Optimal Tip to Tip Efficiency? No loving way!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Konsek posted:So who wants to read a 12 page Stanford research paper on Optimal Tip to Tip Efficiency? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
I can't believe I read the whole thing. The description of groups B and C as "increasingly flaccid" in the final diagram was just too much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:I can't believe I read the whole thing. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Konsek posted:So who wants to read a 12 page Stanford research paper on Optimal Tip to Tip Efficiency? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Konsek posted:So who wants to read a 12 page Stanford research paper on Optimal Tip to Tip Efficiency? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
So how many months do you think until we see a porn testing these methods out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Harminoff posted:So how many months do you think until we see a porn testing these methods out? Heck, they don't even need to test it. Just have the porn industry's finest mathematicians run the numbers. The research seems solid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Holy poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
My wife and I binged over this show over the last two weeks. Holy gently caress I can't wait for the next season.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
I haven't gotten but maybe three episodes into this yet so what the gently caress is up with the tip to tip thing? Spoiler tag it if you must for others, Cuz I don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Like I just skipped from page three because I like spoilers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
You won't find out until the last episode, and it's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Seriously I'm not even that crazy on enforcing spoilers, but don't ruin that scene for yourself. Just keep going with the show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I haven't gotten but maybe three episodes into this yet so what the gently caress is up with the tip to tip thing? Spoiler tag it if you must for others, Cuz I don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I haven't gotten but maybe three episodes into this yet so what the gently caress is up with the tip to tip thing? Spoiler tag it if you must for others, Cuz I don't give a gently caress. It's arguably one of the best jokes in the series- but if you must know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx3wDTzqDTs
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
It's about dicks bumping heads. Now that I think about, that's really all anything that happens in Silicon Valley boils down to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Konsek posted:So who wants to read a 12 page Stanford research paper on Optimal Tip to Tip Efficiency? Haha that is fantastic
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
IMO the paper makes many unsubstantiated simplifications and assumptions that put its findings in doubt. For instance, what's accounting for reduced (or negative) gratification in T2T or S2S arrangements vs single member stimulation? And receptiveness to presenter is assumed to be Gaussian, while in reality there are likely to be 10-15% of the audience population with significantly outlying receptiveness  Remember how everyone was making fun of this invention? Well who's laughing now that MIT has this thing out: http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/27/local-warming/
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Remember how everyone was making fun of this invention?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Yeah that scene bothered me because they were horrifyingly hostile towards a product with no basis with no actual evidence that it was dangerous except instinct, when there is zero chance those guys got there product that far without it being safe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Yeah, we had that discussion (starting on page 10 of this thread). I still say it's a double joke - the judges are stupid AND the inventors are stupid!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
I thought the idea was about the most sensible of those presented on TechCrunch too, but IIRC the consensus in this very thread was that we were supposed to laugh at the inventors, and not the judges...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yeah, we had that discussion (starting on page 10 of this thread). Yeah, the show is pretty careful not to obviously lean one way or the other, and instead let the viewer decide how to take it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:IMO the paper makes many unsubstantiated simplifications and assumptions that put its findings in doubt. For instance, what's accounting for reduced (or negative) gratification in T2T or S2S arrangements vs single member stimulation? And receptiveness to presenter is assumed to be Gaussian, while in reality there are likely to be 10-15% of the audience population with significantly outlying receptiveness It also overlooks the real-world human factor like how the tip to tip optimization requires the whole crowd to be comfortable placing their dicks next to each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Yeah the personal heater joke was kind of an inkblot test. The correct answer is obviously that the nerds did their homework on safety but didn't stop to think that heating people with microwaves would probably elicit an instinctive negative response from the layman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
withak posted:Yeah the personal heater joke was kind of an inkblot test. The correct answer is obviously that the nerds did their homework on safety but didn't stop to think that heating people with microwaves would probably elicit an instinctive negative response from the layman. I disagree, and think the joke "I've been testing it on these guys all winter" was to show the guy hasn't really done the homework yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
The Dave posted:I disagree, and think the joke "I've been testing it on these guys all winter" was to show the guy hasn't really done the homework yet. Congratulations on failing the personality test.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Yeah ignore my part about them making a joke about testing it for 3 months to support your pet theory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Tests on coders happen after the actual medical work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
withak posted:Tests on coders happen after the actual medical work. I think you're missing the joke that everyone is horrified because they probably wouldn't be following correct safety procedures like that, because they're just another insane startup trying to "disrupt" a system that was working fine. (And change the world.) I mean, there's definitely room for jokes about the squares not understanding new technology, but this was definitely (in part) a joke about crazy startup lifestyles abusing employees, and business plans that no one would buy into, taken to the extreme. Why would it be just a personality test for the viewer? There's a whole culture out here of people who are convinced they're experts in everything because they can program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Yo I think you're missing the point of an inkblot test. The inkblot isn't a vagina or a butterfly. It's an inkblot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
In this case it was clearly a vagina.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, people. You're supposed to laugh at the start up dudes, not the judges. How is this even up for debate. Goons are terrible at television.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Holy poo poo, people. You're supposed to laugh at the start up dudes, not the judges. How is this even up for debate. Goons are terrible at television. Well you see, the first thing they claimed was that they tested it on their 3 coders for a couple months. But you are supposed to know from that information that they've gone through extensive medical testing, without it being brought up. Even though that would be an infinitely better thing for the presenter to mention, he doesn't. So you're supposed to laugh at the judges for being dumb and not inferring properly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
You just brought piss to a poo poo fight, TVIV!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Holy poo poo, people. You're supposed to laugh at the start up dudes, not the judges. How is this even up for debate. Goons are terrible at television. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Remember how everyone was making fun of this invention?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 22:45
|
|
